So the fruitcake known as James Dobson apparently just discovered Obama’s Call to Renewal Speech of 2006 and described Obama’s interpretation of the Constitution as a fruitcake interpretation. First, Obama’s speech (which, btw, I was first made aware of just weeks ago from everyone’s Happy Hominid, the Evolutionary Middleman):

Among other bits that Dobson got bent over was this bit:

“I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

Dobson’s response?

“What the senator is saying there, in essence, is that I can’t seek to pass legislation for example, that bans partial birth abortion because there are people in the culture who don’t see that as a moral issue and if I can’t get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. That is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”

He went on to say, “you can see I’ve managed to raise my blood pressure here,” but let me tell you sir, you’ve raised mine through the roof. First, let me point out that in order to have a proper interpretation of the Constitution, you have to have read it first. There’s absolutely no way anyone who has read it could possibly come up with such an objection to Obama’s comment. Now if you want to justify your nonsensical positions like abstinence programs, banning contraceptives, banning HPV inoculations, banning RU486, denying equal rights to gays, or banning abortions solely on biblical grounds, go ahead. Knock yourself out. Obama’s point was that you’re not going to convince enough people to sign on to your fruitcake bus to crazy town with that kind of enticement. You have to somehow (good luck) give some kinds of non-biblical reasons to support your points.

Now in my opinion, Obama was being kind, for I can’t see how it should even be legal to base legislation on the bible or any holy book. THAT flies in the face of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Of course Dobson would know that if he read it, or perhaps he did but, like our current administration, simply wiped his ass with it afterwards and flushed it away. This asshat has no respect for either the Constitution or democracy, and therefore, I say, no respect for the United States of America, for any one who would put their religion above their country is no American, and is most definitely a fruitcake.

Come on, Dobson is a dumbfuck, he has been for decades. He’s the guy behind one county in California refusing to marry *ANYONE* so they can get out of marrying gay couples. If anything, as he’s gotten older, he’s gotten more delusional, he’s one religious fuck I won’t be sorry to see drop dead.

He used to have some decent things to say on his “Character Counts” spots on the radio, years and years back, but that was before he went utterly religiously batshit insane. Today, his “Focus on Fruitcakery” is just nonsense and he’s a sad, pathetic, hate-filled old fart.

Wrong is one thing, but the audacity to say that imposing biblical mandates through legislation, despite what society wishes, is somehow indicative of what democracy is well beyond just being wrong. That’s immeasurably stupid or insane.

Wrong is thinking abstinence works.Wrong is thinking contraceptives lead to promiscuity.Wrong is thinking HPV inoculations lead to promiscuity.Hell, wrong is thinking sex is bad, but this “fruitcake interpretation” comment? The man needs to be fitted for a nice white jacket, the kind that buckles in back.